Book Review: A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy (original) (raw)
Related papers
© notice, is given to the source. Culture, Institutions and the Wealth of Nations
2010
Wacziarg for his comments and suggestions. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.
Review of Radical Political Economics, 2017
Culture has occupied an uncomfortable position within economics. Even as economics has been preoccupied with the question of material progress and economic growth since its classical political economy days, it has not quite figured out what to do with the unwieldy "black box" 1 of culture. The book under review explores this very befuddlement economics retains toward culture. Through a survey of literature emerging from the major traditions in the discipline-classical, neoclassical, Marxian, institutionalist (old and new), and feminist-Zein-Elabdin reviews the extent to which culture has been considered and incorporated into "the operation-and therefore, explanation-of economic phenomena" and "in the construction of economic knowledge" (6). The primary goal here is to unpack the role of culture in economics overall and in understandings of economic development in particular. Given its pluralist agenda of tracing culture in multiple schools of thought, and not only neoclassical economics-of which cultural economics is one offshoot-the scope of this work is broader than, say, David Throsby's influential work expounding the principles of cultural economics (Throsby 2001). Indeed, the emergence and role of cultural economics itself is placed in context of the discipline's overall engagement with culture (chapter 3: 53-59). As a first step, Zein-Elabdin defines culture as "contested, shared everyday sensibilities and practices-including economic ones-of a society or group, which sanction and censor its participants in multiple ways that may not always be fully coherent" (1-2). Culture thus provides "a social frame of reference" (27-28) that shapes knowledge and action. This description, although inspired by some existing definitions proposed by scholars in economic work (appendix 2 provides a large collection of these), goes beyond a view of culture as static or unchanging. The central argument of this book is that the treatment of culture in the major schools of economic thought adheres, broadly speaking, to a reductive, essentialist, "dualistic ontology" that diminishes the complexity of this interaction into "binary, all-or-nothing, analytical perspectives" and precludes "hybridity" in understandings of "economies and socialities that do not comply with and exceed the dualisms" (3). This dualistic ontology, in turn, is not only rooted in an "existential dichotomy of desire/limits" (9), exemplified in the preferences/constraints dichotomy in neoclassical economics, but also seen in other economic frameworks to differing degrees (base/superstructure in modernist Marxism, class/nonclass in postmodern Marxism, and instrumental/ ceremonial in Veblenian institutionalism). Chapters 2 through 6 provide backing for this central claim, drawing upon writings and examples from various economic traditions. The treatment of culture in classical political economy and among the early neoclassicists (the marginalists) is analyzed by examining the writings of Adam Smith, J. S. Mill, Bentham, Jevons, Clark, and Marshall. The emphasis these early writers 1 Tabellini (2010) refers to culture as a black box in terms of understanding its "interaction with the economic and institutional environment." 665831R RPXXX10.
Futures, 1994
There is a major battle looming over whether cultures or economies should be the focus of future developmental activity and national and international concern. Those favouring economies contend that economies deserve highest priority because they are concerned with people's basic needs. Those favouring cultures contend that cultures deserve highest priority because they are concerned with the total spectrum of human needs as well as the relationship with the environment. This article is divided into four parts. First, the rise and triumph of economies is traced. Second, some cracks which are starting to appear in the armour of economies and economics generally are examined. Third, the emergence of cultures is analysed. Finally, some implications of the shift that appears to be occurring from economies to cultures are explored.
The deep historical roots of modern culture: A comparative perspective
Journal of Comparative Economics, 2020
This paper presents evidence showing that there have been since antiquity two opposed types of institutional systems: one resembling central planning and present in ancient China, ancient Egypt, the Inca Empire and other territorial states, and another one with strong market institutions, protection of property rights present mostly in city-states, not just in the Mediterranean but throughout the world. Evidence is presented that these institutional differences dating back to the antiquity are shaped by special geographical conditions. These institutional differences can be seen to be at the root of the two cultural systems in today's world: individualism and collectivism. These cultural differences have effects on economic performance and institutions in today's world.
Culture, Institutions the Long Divergence
2021
Recent theories of the Long Divergence between Middle Eastern and Western European economies focus on Middle Eastern (over-)reliance on religious legitimacy, use of slave soldiers, and persistence of restrictive proscriptions of religious (Islamic) law. These theories take as exogenous the cultural values that complement the prevailing institutions. As a result, they miss the role of cultural values in either supporting the persistence of or inducing change in the economic and institutional environment. In this paper, we address these issues by modeling the joint evolution of institutions and culture. In doing so, we place the various hypotheses of economic divergence into one, unifying framework. We highlight the role that cultural transmission plays in reinforcing institutional evolution toward either theocratic or secular states. We extend the model to shed light on political decentralization and technological change in the two regions.
Growth, History and Institutions
Cepr Discussion Papers, 2004
Bhaduri focuses on the Keynesian theory of effective demand and the Schumpeterian emphasis on the influence of market structures on technological change. The third chapter, by Ferdinando Meacci is, by contrast, mainly historical: it completes the two previous viewpoints on the classical economists with a reconstruction of Smith's competition-of-capitals doctrine. The next four chapters introduce heterodox models and comparison among them. Chapter 4, by Duncan Foley and Lance Taylor, describes a heterodox macroeconomic model put together with two explicit aims in mind: 'to set out a benchmark for comparison of heterodox and orthodox approaches to economic growth and income distribution, and to point out similarities shared by a wide range of heterodox models'. Chapter 5, by Gennaro Zezza and Claudio Dos Santos, presents a stock-flow model of growth for a closed economy that encompasses virtually all one-sector post-Keynesian growth models as special cases and uses it to analyse the The last (but not least) three chapters introduce institutions into the picture. Chapter 14, by Graziella Bertocchi, illustrates the ongoing research line which adds a historical and institutional dimension to economic growth analysis both at the theoretical and empirical level: it presents applications of this research strategy to the impact of colonization on growth, the extension of the franchise and the welfare state, the evolution of educational systems, the relationship between industrialization and democratization, and international migration. Chapter 15, by Michele Bagella, Leonardo Becchetti and Stefano Caiazza, argues that religious differences among countries are crucial determinants of the evolution of market rules and financial institutions; it shows that a positive link between institutions and growth arises only in those countries whose cultural background allowed them to reach a sufficient degree of institutional development and that the effect of institutions on growth is, for a significant part, exogenous. Chapter 16, by Gabriella Berloffa and Maria Luigia Segnana, questions the views that trade liberalization 'is always good for growth' and that 'growth is always good for the poor' and argues that the problem of poverty reduction cannot be separated from the context in which trade is liberalized. Almost all the chapters of this book as well as all the papers included in the special issue of Metroeconomica have been peer-reviewed (the exceptions are the invited lectures to the conference). I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the referees who contributed to improving the published papers and advised me of their publishability. The following scholars helped me with this task: